Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 August 6
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 5 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 7 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 6
[edit]Qualms over free samplers
[edit]On Amazon MP3 store, indie labels such as Sub Pop, Merge, and Matador offer quarterly free samplers including singles from various artists entirely free of charge. Since one would have to pay for these songs elsewhere, it confuses me why they are offered for free there. Is there any issue with downloading songs from these samplers? If not, why don't more people use them to get singles? 66.41.216.19 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no issue with it. It is used as a form of advertising to get you to try the music, with hopes that you will pay for songs in the future. Similar to how Apple gives a way a song or three for free every week from the iTunes Store. RudolfRed (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you feel guilty about listening to the radio, using a public library, or receiving a gift? If not then I'm not sure why you feel guilty accepting obvious promotion from for profit entities. If they're giving away actual revenue then that's their mistake. And if so many of them are doing it... perhaps that sheds some light on the question whether sharing is the moral equivalence of theft. Shadowjams (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Vendors have given away free samples for years, it's probably the most honest form of advertising there is. Here's a little bottle of our sauce/shampoo/whatever, have a little slice of our cake, shot of drink, whatever. If you like it you'll buy some, if not, well you can't win them all. It's nothing new: probably allocated to the advertising or promotion budget and as people keep doing it likely as effective as say TV adverts or posters, etc. There's no reason why recorded music should be any different in this respect. Britmax (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you feel guilty about listening to the radio, using a public library, or receiving a gift? If not then I'm not sure why you feel guilty accepting obvious promotion from for profit entities. If they're giving away actual revenue then that's their mistake. And if so many of them are doing it... perhaps that sheds some light on the question whether sharing is the moral equivalence of theft. Shadowjams (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)